Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Hank Campbell | June 20th 2008 12:54 AM | 13 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Science 2.0 articles

All

About Hank Campbell

A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes.

Probably no one ever said a website was the greatest idea anyone ever had, but a website... Full Bio

If you watch popular shows like “Undress the Nation” or Gok Wan’s “How to Look Good Naked” - what, you don't watch them? That's because that guy behind American Idol hasn't brought them here yet, and in these times of strife we need shows about women in underwear - but if you live in England and watch them you may have noticed something a researcher also noticed; when women wear the right underwear, they are more confident about their bodies and about their overall appearance which, to men, is the same thing.

Who knew underwear was so important? Not me. All I know is there is 'dating' underwear - bras and panties match - and then 'dating a long time' underwear. You do the math.

But Christiana Tsaousi at the University of Leicester School of Management says it is not so simple. She says skivvies are a vital component of womanliness because they generate 'sensations and feelings of confidence.'

I guess all men like the sound of that.(*)

Tsaousi has been studying this for two years. Her interest in identity and popular culture was the motivator. I don't know what that means but if I had known I could get a graduate degree studying women in underwear I would still be in school.



Christiana Tsaousi

Says she: “Underwear comprises the most intimate part of our clothing but still has great social importance, since a considerable amount of money is spent by women consumers on their underwear. Women participating in this research report different experiences regarding how their underwear supports them in the many roles they are called to play out every day. It can be a silent, routine part of our everyday ‘body work’, serving its purpose of holding in/controlling the body but it can also stimulate different feelings on different occasions. So a woman’s knickers, bras, camisoles and so on become a tool of expression and a carrier of feelings about her body and her sexuality.”



Is this a bikini or underwear? More research needed.

“Underwear can make me feel good or bad,” added Caitlyn, an administrator.

Amen, sister.

Tsaousi is presenting her research June 26th at the Festival of Postgraduate Research. I had never heard of that before either but it gives postgraduate researchers the chance to discuss their work with the public in a live setting. Which is a pretty cool idea.

I am betting Tsaousi has the biggest crowd.

There's no online link to anything she has published but I will ask her for a copy of the presentation she gives at the Festival. She may not want to, given the light tone of this post. Some people take their underwear pretty seriously.


(*) All but 2% of us, anyway.


Comments

adaptivecomplexity's picture
I don't know what that means but if I had known I could get a graduate degree studying women in underwear I would still be in school.

There are probably a lot of guys in their 5th or 6th year of grad school, stuck in some ordinary project, who are now kicking themselves after reading this piece.

Mike

Hank's picture
"Hmmm ... Drosophila or Alessandra Ambrosio? Drosophila or Alessandra Ambrosio? I choose B!"

Interesting topic, although a more information about the study (indeed if you are going to post it on here) and a little less opinion and patronisation from the poster would improve it greatly.

This is disgusting. I was looking at your site after seeing an ad for a scientific journalism internship, but after seeing this article--written by scientificblogging.com's founder, as far as I can tell--there is absolutely no way I would consider working here. Where is the science in objectifying women like this? I'm amazed you thought this was ok to post.

I too am highly offended by the content of this posting. That you consider this to be 'scientific' reporting in delusional. As a true scientist and a woman, I find the contents of this article appalling. This posting should be removed immediately.

Hank's picture
Well, I didn't do the study, a female scientist did, so I am not sure how your gender trumps hers (or mine.) You may disagree that female underwear and its impact on self esteem is worthy of a lonely blog post, much less a two-year study. Fair enough.

That's the beauty and the puzzle of human nature, much like anyone who would make a sweeping generalization about a community of world famous scientists, Nobel prize recipients, post-docs and science journalists here based on one humorous piece (out of 30,000 articles) shall remain a puzzle to sociologists everywhere.

I am not questioning the validity of the science that was conducted, but rather the way in which you present it. I fail to see the humor in your sexist writing.

Hank's picture
We have an AAAS Fellow who castigates Creatonists today. 70% of America is religious, so should we take it down because they don't like it? We have a person from The Nature Conservancy talking about global warming. If two people from Exxon complain, should we take it down?

Nothing would ever get written if it required that everyone have veto power before it is published. It's in defiance of the principle of freedom of expression and the specifics of the Constitution. "This posting should be removed immediately" is bordering on fascist and I don't think any objective person would regard this as 'sexist' but if that's a word you use a lot, I am not surprised you would see it that way.

Hank,

When I came to this site, I expected to find a forum for scientific news and discussion, which entails a certain level of professionalism. If I had seen your post on a private blog, it wouldn't have fazed me. But on a site like this, it's completely inappropriate. Then again, you're the founder of the site, so I would think you would already know this. Evidently not.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
If I had seen your post on a private blog, it wouldn't have fazed me.

This is a site for both informal blogs with personal opinions, and more "professional" news articles. It's not a science magazine.

It's a shame that you judge the entire site based on one piece you don't like.

Mike

Agreed. It is within my rights to state the opinion “This posting should be removed immediately” just as it is within your rights to supply interesting but somewhat irrelevant points on religion and predicted global warming (which are essentially opinions rather than inherited traits, such as sex). Perhaps I was too hasty in flouting the word ‘sexist’; ad hominem is never pretty (as you have demonstrated). I must say though that such discussion - if not your original article - is surely a positive product of our freedoms! Thank you for the informative debate!

Hank's picture
Tessa,

Now you get it. It's completely okay to tell someone here they are full of crap - but it should be about issues and not individuals, thus labelling me 'sexist' without knowing a single thing about me is likely the exact sort of thing you would hate having done to you. It's reactionary and prejudicial.

It's an open community. We have men, women, atheists, religious people, heterosexuals, homosexuals, transsexuals - you name it, it's here, under one common science umbrella. Nicole Mans clearly did not like this blog post, and is apparently not a fan of a truly open science community where people from all walks, genders, races and creeds can agree or not on science issues (or, in this case, me injecting some humor into science issues) - but we like it and about a million other people a month do too.

It's pointless to complain about one post in an open community - just sign up, write some good stuff and make the community into whatever you like more.

Hank,
I find a lot of what you have written here to be quite hypocritical.
1. In a condescending manner, you go on about ‘labeling’ but you yourself did this in an earlier post (for one, your fascist comment was completely off mark)
2. You talk about a truly open science forum but then say that it’s pointless to complain to an individual post. Surely this helps to ensure quality?
3. You have failed to even address the issues that Nicole Mans raised, and instead have chosen to launch a personal attack based on pure supposition.
You clearly need to have the last word (well, it is “your” blog, after all!), instead of at least appreciating the fact that someone is reading and responding to what you have written. This shows a high level of journalistic immaturity.
The bottom line is the science. If the aim is to communicate the science in an effective, interesting and accurate way, I would say that you have failed on all accounts. I look forward to a higher standard in the future.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.